Egypt. Acad. J. biolog. Sci., 1 (1): 65-71 (2009) B.

Zoology
Email: egyptianacademic@yahoo.com ISSN: 2090 – 0759
Received: 7/9/2009 www.eajbs.eg.net

The influence of prey on size, capture area and mesh height of the orb-web of the
garden spider, Argiope aemula (Walckenaer, 1841) (Araneaea: Araneidae)

Liza R. Abrenica-Adamat1, Mark Anthony J. Torres1, Adelina A. Barrion2,

Aimee Lynn B. Dupo2 and Cesar G. Demayo1*

1- Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science and Mathematics,

Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology, 9200 Iligan City,
Philippines
2- Institute of Biological Sciences, U.P. Los Bańos Laguna, Philippines
*For Correspondence: cgdemayo@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The orb-web garden spider Argiope aemula (Walckenaer, 1841) is a sit-and-

wait predator. It is argued that it can anticipate its future prey environment by
detecting the presence of prey and adjusting their web building behavior accordingly.
Therefore this study therefore investigates the influence of the different prey sizes and
density of the capture area and mesh height of the webs constructed by the spider. In
the laboratory, the spiders were given prey with different size and densities to
determine their influence on the web architecture. Results show that spider individuals
can increase or decrease the sizes of webs, capture area, and mesh height in response
to prey size and density. Starved spiders constructed significantly larger webs than
well-fed spiders. In the absence of potential prey, the spiders constructed larger
capture area. In the presence of small prey, spiders significantly constructed very
narrow- meshed webs or tightly spaced capture spirals than the presence of larger prey
but larger than in no prey regime. Similarly, the food deprived spiders spun small-
spaced mesh height than well-fed spiders. The results of the present study demonstrate
that spiders can manipulate their web architecture in response to different prey sizes
and food availability (densities).

Keywords: Argiope aemula (Walckenaer, 1841), stabilimentum, web size, web capture area, web mesh
height.

INTRODUCTION

All orb-web spiders are sit-and-wait predators. According to Murakami

(1993), orb-webs must serve several functions and variation in design will influence
prey capture success. These include web orientation (Eberhard, 1989), web tension
(Craig et al., 1985), silk strength (Craig 1987), web visibility or attractiveness to prey
(Craig and Bernard, 1990) and web design (Eberhard, 1986). Once the web is built, it
cannot be changed easily or quickly, and the quality of the trap and that the spider’s
success in prey capture depends on the decisions made before the building.
Herberstein et al. (2000) argue that the orb-web spiders employ flexibility in their
foraging behavior. In response to periods of starvation, the web size is increased and
the spider attack preys unselectively. Satiated spiders on the other hand, decrease the
web size and reject less profitable prey. The web with a large mesh may be less
efficient in keeping insects entangled than the web with smaller mesh. Specifically,
this study aims to answer the following questions: (1) Does the prey body length
variation results in the differences in web mesh height? (2) Does the variation in
66 Liza R. Abrenica-Adamat et al.

foraging success influence the architecture of the web, hence, well-fed or satiated
spiders build smaller web and absence of prey increases the web size and capture
area?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Feeding Treatment. Thirty seven (37) penultimate and adult females (Fig. 1) of
Argiope aemula (Walckenaer, 1841) were collected and each was placed in a
13x9x9cm upturned plastic cup and watered through wet cotton and fed with one blue
fly and brought to the laboratory. It was then starved for four days prior to
experimentation to ensure that the spiders’ energetic status was uniform. Each spider
was housed in a wooden cage 60 x 60 x 20 cm, covered with clean plastic sheeting on
the top, front, and back. Screen sides provided ventilation. Only spiders (N=30) that
spun webs on the next 24 hours were used in the experiment.

Fig.1: Female Argiope aemula (Walckenaer 1841) from the vicinity of Mindanao Steel Corporation:
(A) dorsal view, (B) ventral view.
B

Spiders were subjected to three sequential feeding treatments. These were: (A)
small-size prey; (B) large-size prey; and (C) no prey. Spiders in small-size prey
regime were given fruit flies (Drosophila sp.; body size: 0.25-0.30 cm) ad libitum and
one grasshopper (body size: 1.2-1.6 cm) was introduced directly into the webs to
spiders in large-size prey regime. For the first three (1-3) consecutive days, spiders
were given fruit flies ad libitum. For the next 3 days (day 4-6), spiders were given one
grasshopper every day. For five (5) days (day 7-11) the spiders were fasted. The web
architecture were observed every day in small and large prey regime, while in no prey
regime, only webs spun in the final 3 days (day 9-11) were observed to ensure that
the spiders were already starving. For the purpose of comparison, spiders in no prey
feeding regime are categorized “starved” or “fasted” while in small-size prey and
large prey regime are considered “poorly-fed” and “well-fed” respectively. The web
architecture was observed and documented every day. The web was photographed
with a ruler beside it (for calibration) and imported to UTHSCSA Image Tool
software UTHSCSA Image Tool Version 3.00 where necessary measurements were
done. The web capture area was determined by subtracting the area of the free zone
(non-sticky spirals) from the size of the web while the mesh height is the average
distance between sticky spirals of the web (Fig. 2).
 The influence of prey on web size, capture area and mesh eight of the orb-web garden spider 67

Fig. 2: A schematic web of Argiope aemula demonstrating the web parameters measured. Free zone
(white-color) is the area in the center of a web covered by non-sticky spirals and is present in
both decorated and undecorated webs. Capture area (gray-color) is the rest of web area covered
by sticky spirals. Mesh height/size/width is the distance between two consecutive sticky spirals.
Stabilimentum, if present, may consist of one arm in the lower half or one arm on both the
lower and upper halves, or two arms in both lower and upper halves of the webs. Sometimes
stabilimenta may extend into the area covered by sticky spirals.

Statistical Analyses. Linear Regression, Kruskal-Wallis Test and One-way ANOVA

were used to compare between treatments in terms of web size, web capture area and
mesh heights. Statistical Analysis was performed using the Paleontological Statistics
(PAST) Software.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table (1) shows that the prey treatment had a confound effect on the web size
(ANOVA: F=43.5; df=2; p<0.001), web capture area (F= 30.08; df=2; p<0.001) and
web mesh height (F=34.79; df=2; p= <0.001). The web size was significantly
different between the three treatments (Figure 2 and Table 1). Starved spiders spun
significantly larger webs than well-fed spiders (NP=2078.3+457.3 cm2 vs.
LP=1250+466.0 cm2; Turkey’s Pairwise Test: Q=7.645, p<0.001). Similarly, spiders
in small-prey regime constructed larger webs than spiders in large prey regime
(SP=1607.8+497.5cm2 vs. LP=1250+466.0 cm2,p<0.001).
Table1: Mean (+SD) web parameters for No Prey (NP), Small-size Prey (SP), and Large-size Prey (LP)
A. aemula.
Parameters No Prey Small-Size Prey Large-size Prey P
Web Size (cm2 ) 2078.3+457.3; n=50 1607.8+497.5; n=65 1250+466.0; n= 67 3.1E-13*
Capture Area (cm2 ) 2009.7+404.5; n=48 1594.6+484.3; n=53 1216.6+456.7; n=31 1.9E-11*
Mesh Height (cm) 0.43+0.06; n=46 0.36+0.08; n=60 0.49+0.09; n=44 4.3E-13*
*P values are from Kruskal Wallis and ANOVA (*) Tests comparing the treatments (comparing means) and n is
the number of webs measured in each parameter.

In the absence of potential prey, spiders not only increased the web size but
also the capture area. A significant difference in web capture area was observed
among spiders in different feeding treatments (p<0.001). The no prey spiders
constructed significantly larger capture area than in the presence of small prey
68 Liza R. Abrenica-Adamat et al.

(NP=2,009.67+404.4cm2 vs. SP=1,594.6+484.3cm2; Q=5.953, p<0.001) and large

prey (NP=2,009.67+404.4cm2 vs. LP=1181.30 + 491.5 cm2; Q=11.38, p<0.001).
This result further shows that fasted or starved spiders constructed the largest web
capture area than those poorly-fed and well-fed spiders.
In the presence of small prey, spiders significantly constructed very narrow-
meshed webs or tightly spaced capture spirals than the presence of larger prey
(SP=0.36 +0.08 cm vs. LP=0.49+0.09 cm; Q=11.46, p<0.001). Moreover, in the
absence of prey, spiders constructed significantly narrower- meshed (0.43 + 0.06cm;
N=46) compared to spiders in the presence of large prey (NP=0.43+0.06 vs. LP=
0.49+0.09; Q=5.03, p<0.001). Our results demonstrate that spiders are capable to
manipulate web mesh height in response to different prey sizes. Spiders in small-size
prey regime decrease the mesh height to improve retention of smaller prey because
more silk can adhere to the prey. A potential for undertaking prey-specific web
adjustments requires that the spider can classify prey types and respond to a change in
prey types by altering features of the web in an adaptive way (Sandoval, 1994). The
results of the present study show that in addition to facultative decorating their webs
A. aemula adjust their web size and design based upon previous foraging history and
success. A. aemula significantly increase or decrease their web size, web capture area
and mesh height in response to changing prey size and density. It has been suggested
that the ability of web- building spiders to function as predators is intimately linked to
the construction of webs, such that, they manipulate the sizes (Sherman, 1994) and
design (Craig, 1987) of webs as either evolutionary or behavioral responses to
changes in prey density or type.
In the present study, the spiders were fed first with large-size prey (body size:
1.2-1.6 cm) and then allowed to starve, where the former built smaller webs than the
latter. The increase in the web size could have been due to foraging success but not
due to prey size since spider in no prey treatment built the largest web than those in
small-prey and large- prey treatments. The prey used in the experiment strongly
differed in weight and body size (prey size: 0.25cm vs. 1.2-1.6 cm; Figure 3). These
differences in prey size and weight might have affected the web size and web capture
area obtained after prey digestion due to the differences in satiation between
treatments rather than the effect of experience with different types of prey.
The starved spiders were also observed to be able to manipulate their web size
(LP: 1250+466.0 vs. NP: 2078.3+457.3) probably to increase the prey interception
rates. Although, the effect of web design on prey capture rates was not directly tested
in the present study, several studies show that these web variations can directly
influence the length, number and types of prey entangled (Miyashita & Shinkai, 1995;
Herberstein, and Elgar 1994; Craig, 1987). Manipulation of investment in webs as
means to alter foraging web area will reflect in a higher prey interception, hence,
higher prey capture rate (Herberstein & Elgar 1994); a greater number of radii enable
the web to absorb more kinetic energy and thus retain heavier and faster flying prey
(Craig, 1987). In the absence of potential prey, spiders (starved) not only increased
the web size but also the capture area. The no prey spiders constructed larger capture
area than those in the presence of small prey and large prey.
Our present study also indicates a short-term response of mesh height to the
type of prey. In the presence of small prey (body size: 0.25-0.30 cm; weight: 0.0011-
0.0018g), spiders significantly constructed very narrow-meshed webs or tightly
spaced capture spirals compared to the presence of larger prey (body weight: 1.20-
1.60 cm; weight: 0.1309+0.071g) probably to efficiently intercept and capture the
detected small-sized prey. The spiders were fed first with small-size prey, as the prey
 The influence of prey on web size, capture area and mesh eight of the orb-web garden spider 69

was replaced with large-sized prey, the spiders adjusted (increased) the distances
between the web sticky spirals. This suggests that spiders in different feeding groups
adopted different foraging strategies (e.g. narrow-spaced or larger-spaced mesh
height) based upon an assessment of their previous foraging success (presence of
small-prey or large-prey or interception and consumption of small-prey and large
prey). This further suggests that starved or food-deprived spiders increased their
foraging effort in terms of silk investment by spinning more tightly spaced sticky
spirals compared to satiated or well-fed spiders. Furthermore, in the absence of prey,
spiders constructed narrower-meshed compared to spiders in the presence of large
prey but larger than in the presence of small-size prey. This is probably because
spiders were unable to detect presence of any prey type or cannot know why they are
not catching prey, so spider in no prey treatment made a compromise between
increasing and decreasing the mesh height to accommodate both small-size and large-
size prey.
In the present study, the food-deprived spiders did not only increase the web
size and capture area but also increased the number of spiral turns while decreasing
the distances between spirals turns. Suggesting that starved spiders should increase
their web construction effort (increased investment on web spirals) to efficiently
increase their foraging effort. In addition, the increasing web construction effort could
be ultimately directed to increasing prey capture rates thus increase foraging success
which has a significant implication to spiders’ survival. According to Chacon and
Eberhard (1980) and Herberstein et al. (2000), a larger capture area results in higher
prey interception and by increasing the distance between sticky spirals spiders may
enlarge over-all capture area without greater energy expenditure. Hence, the food-
deprived spiders commonly increase web area to enhance prey encounter. Similarly,
based on the study conducted by Eberhard (1986) and Peakall and Witt (1976), a large
web intercepts more insects but at the same time more expensive to construct than
small web of the same design, not only in terms of material but also because of a
higher construction effort.
Finally, the observed differences in web mesh height is due to the differences
in prey body length (prey size: 0.25cm vs. 1.2-1.6 cm) and prey kinetic energy
(Prokop, 2006). The effects of web architecture, especially on mesh height, are
interesting in light of mixed and contradicting results from other studies (Heiling and
Herberstein, 1998; McReynolds & Polis, 1987, Herberstein & Elgar 1994; Eberhard,
1986; Nentwig, 1983; Vollrath 1992a,b; Murakami, 1983, Uetz et al. 1978;
Blackledge and Zevenbergen, 2006, and Prokop, 2006). Murakami (1983) and Uetz et
al. (1978) argued that a lower mesh height will target prey items with a smaller body
length that otherwise fly through a web. Blackledge and Zevenbergen (2006) found
out that increased mesh width of Argiope aurantia orb-webs resulted in a general
reduction in the retention times of insects, though the retention times for different taxa
of insects were not predicted by any specific morphological or flight characteristics.
The retention times of insects are very complex, but their results suggest that mesh
width can act to selectively capture a certain taxa of insects over others. The findings
of their study may help to explain the variation in web architectures (mesh height)
spun by A. aemula spiders in response to prey size variation. Our results on mesh
height, however, contradicts the findings of Witt (1963), that when prey conditions
were bad, thread production decreased and both web area and mesh height increased
when spiders were starved.
70 Liza R. Abrenica-Adamat et al.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Antonio Obenza and his family of Mindanao Steel Corporation,

Lugait, Misamis Oriental for giving the researchers permission to collect the spiders;
Alexander Adamat, and Antonio Obenza and his younger brother for the collecting of
spiders; Denny Flor Castro for the help in the collecting of spiders, collecting of
grasshopper and rearing of fruit flies.

REFERENCES

Blackledge, T. A. and Zevenbergen, J. M. (2006). Mesh width influences prey retention in

spider or webs. Ethology, 112(12):1194-1201.
Chacón, P. and Eberhard, W.G. (1980). Factors affecting numbers and kinds of prey
caught in artificial spider webs, with consideration of how orb webs trap prey.
Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 5(1): 29-38.
Craig, C.L. (1987). The significance of spider size to the diversification of spider-web
architectures and spider reproductive modes. American Naturalist, 129: 47-68.
Craig, C. L. and Bernard, G. D. (1990). Insect attraction to ultraviolet-reflecting
spider webs and web decorations. Ecology, 71(3): 616-624.
Craig, C. L.; Okubo, A. and Andreasen, V. (1985). Effect of spider orb-web and
insect oscillation on prey interception. J. of Theoretical Biology, 1:201-211.
Eberhard, W. G. (1986). Effects of orb-web geometry on prey interception and
retention. In SHEAR, W.A. (ed.): Spiders: webs, behavior, and evolution.
Stanford University Press, Stanford. Pp. 70-100.
Eberhard, W. G. (1989). Effects of orb web orientation and spider size on prey
retention. Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 8:45-48.
Heiling, A. M. and Herberstein, M. E. (1998). The web of Nuctenea sclopetaria
(Araneae, Araneidae): relationship between body size and web design. Journal of
Arachnology, 26: 91-96.
Herberstein, M. E. and Elgar, M. A. (1994). Foraging strategies of Eriophora transmarina
and Nephila plumipes (Araneae:Araneoidea): Nocturnal and diurnal orb-weaving
spiders. Australian Journal of Ecoogy, 19:451-457.
Herberstein, M. E.; Craig, C. L.; Coddington, J. A. and Elgar, M. A. (2000). Foraging
strategies and feeding regimes: web decoration investment in Argiope keyserlingi
Karsch (Araneae:Araneidae). Evolution and Ecology Research, 2:69-80.
McReynolds, C. N. and Polis, G. A. (1987). Ecomorphological factors influencing
prey use by two sympatric species of orb-web spiders, Argiope aurantia and
Argiope trifasciata (Araneidae). Journal of Arachnology, 15:371-383.
Miyashita, T. and Shinkai, A. (1995). Design and prey capture ability of webs of
spiders Nephila clavata and Argiope bruenichii. Acta Arachnologica, 44:3-10.
Murakami, C. M. (1983). Factors determining the prey size of the orb-web spider,
Argiope amoena (L. Koch) (Argiopidae).Oecologia, 57:72-77.
Nentwig, W. (1983). The non-filter function of orb-webs in spiders. Oecologia, 58:
418-420.
Peakall, D. B. and Witt, P. N. (1976). The Energy budget of an orb-weaving spider.
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 54:187-190.
Prokop, P. (2006). Prey type does not determine web design in two orb-weaving spiders.
Zoological Studies, 45(1):124-131.
Sandoval, C. P. (1994). Plasticity in web design in the spider Parawixia bistriata. a
response to variable prey type. Functional Ecology, 8:701-707.
 The influence of prey on web size, capture area and mesh eight of the orb-web garden spider 71

Sherman, P. M. (1994). The orb-web: an energetic and behavioral estimator of a spider’s

dynamic foraging and reproductive strategies. Animal Behaviour, 48:19-34.
Uetz, G. W.; Johnson, A. D. and Schemske, D. W. (1978). Web placement, web
structure, and prey capture in orb-weaving spiders. Bulletin of British
Arachnology. Society, 4: 141-148.
Vollrath, F. (1992a). Spider webs and silks. Scientific American, 266:70-76.
Vollrath, F. (1992b). Analysis and interpretation of orb spider exploration and web-
building behavior. Advance Study of Behavior , 21:147-197.
Witt, P.N. (1963) Environment in relation to behaviour of spiders. Archives of
Environmental Health, 7: 4-12.